NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

A Seminar Paper on

The Case of Chakma Refugees in India: A Study

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Athik Saleh T Prof. (Dr.) V.
Vijayakumar
2014BALLB108 Vice Chancellor
Professor in Refugee Law
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for His showers of blessings
throughout my research work to complete the research successfully.

I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my Refugee Law teacher, Prof. (Dr.) V.
Vijayakumar for giving me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable guidance
throughout this research. His dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply inspired
me. He has taught me the methodology to carry out the research and to present the research
works as clearly as possible. It was a great privilege and honor to study under his guidance. I am
extremely grateful for what he has offered me.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the university for providing me the necessary means
and resources to complete the research in a systematic manner in these times of uncertainty.
Lastly, I’d like to thank my parents and colleagues for providing me necessary input wherever
required.
 INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of migration is experienced by the human race for ages. History has witnessed
massive movements of people over great distances to establish a livelihood and to find a secure
home. These up rootedness, exile and forced displacement be they due to conflict, persecution or
even so-called „development‟, are conditions which characterize the lives of millions of people
across the. However, it became a cause of concern only since the beginning of the twentieth
century when the economic development processes, political alignments, socio-cultural
aspirations and environmental conditions worked together to erect political and territorial borders
around ethno-cultural communities for which global population flows became a hindrance 1. India
is considered as the most sought after destination by immigrants from neighbouring countries.
According to a UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report, India was ranked ninth in
terms of the number of international migrants (5,436,012) in 2010 and to account for 2.5 per cent
of all international migrants2.

Numerous studies have been conducted on resettlement and rehabilitation of these displaced
persons and focused on the social, political and economic factors which have acted as push
factors in attracting migrants. But none of them has contented with the ground situation of their
ultimate settlement process. Indeed, this is one of the stories that relates to the Chakmas in
Arunachal Pradesh where certain questions on socio- economic and political status of these
migrants even after their settlement in India still remain unanswered. Therefore, the present
study has been carried out based on secondary sources of information to make an attempt to
highlight and analyze the root cause that had sustained the massive displacement of Chakmas
from their homeland to a new place of unknown.

1
Sarkar, J. P., Bangladeshi Migration to West Bengal: A Cause of Concern,
http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/Jyoti%20Sarkar.pdf.
2
Trends in International Migration Stock: The 2008 Revision, UN database, UN Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Population Division.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The case of Chakma refugees in India, and especially in the state of Arunachal Pradesh is a
peculiar one for a plethora of reasons. A group of people who were denied their choice to be a
part of the country of their choice, who were then uprooted from the land they had lived for
hundreds of years, who had to migrate to a strange land carrying the tag of refugees, and lastly,
who are denied citizenship even after fulfilling all necessary requirements to be a citizen of the
strange land they were resettled in – the Chakma’s story is a story of survival and fight for
recognition. This paper aspires to understand why Chakma’s fight for citizenship is at a standstill
and what can be done by leaders, both political and otherwise, to address their problems and the
problems of indigenous tribes who forever has been against grant of citizenship to the
‘outsiders’. It is also necessary to understand the plight of these settlers’ socio-economic
conditions and how they are coping in a nation where they are officially nothing but ‘outsiders’.

OBJECTIVES

 To understand the history of Chakma refugees in Arunachal Pradesh.

 To examine and study the problems faced by Chakma refugees settled in Arunachal
Pradesh.
 To understand the different factors that has led to Chakma refugees not being granted
citizenship.
 To examine the host society’s perception and reaction towards Chakma refugees.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Why are Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh still not properly integrated into Indian society, and
how can their integration be achieved?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research used in the completion of this paper is doctrinal in nature. For the
purpose of research, secondary sources were used.
Chakmas – A brief History

The origin and history of the Chakmas varies on different views of different scholars. Due to the
lack of written literature on the history of the Chakmas, it is very difficult to trace the beginning
of the Chakmas. Therefore, the origin of the Chakmas is veiled in legends. But one popular view
among the Chakmas is that they came from a place called Champaknagar in the Kingdom of
Anga and descendants of one of the Princes of the kingdom – Bijoygiri. The Chakmas believe
that they belong to the ancient Sakya clan, in which the Great Buddha was born. However, the
modern Chakmas are the original inhabitants of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), who are
perhaps the least known people of Asia being the residents of a remote and backward area which
is of little political or economic consequence. This place has been the homeland of the Chakmas
particularly for centuries. It is argued that they had probably settled in the CHT at least as early
as the sixteenth century. However, it is learnt that from 1052 A.D onwards the Chakmas started
moving from Arakan into the bordering area of Bengal right down the plain areas of Chittagong
and made it their home (Talukdar, 1994). It is in this stratum, there is evidence of mentioning a
place known as “Chacomas” is found in central CHT, probably referring to the land inhabited by
the Chakmas in the 1550s, where a Burmese king claims himself to be the highest and most
powerful king of Arakan, Tippera (Tripura), of Chacomas and of Bengala.

The Chakmas are one of the important tribes in the Indian subcontinent residing mostly in the
CHT (Bangladesh) and in the North-Eastern Indian States like Tripura (North and South),
Arunachal Pradesh (Tirap, Changlang, Subansuri and Lohit districts), Assam (Langsilet area of
Karbi-Anglong and North Cachar Hills districts), Mizoram (Western Belts) and also in West
Bengal, where a few Chakma families are found. A commendable number is also found in the
Chin Province and Arakan Province of Myanmar. Chakmas are known differently to different
people. For example,Thek, Tsek, Chek or Kyoorcha by the Burmese; Tuithek (pronounced
Tuichek) by the Kukis; Takam (pronounced Chakam) by the modern Mizos. Capt. T.H. Lewin in
his book “The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein” called them Chukma (Hoque,
2013). Today, even though the word “Chakma” has been framed as the name of the tribe, but
they never called them as Chakma, instead they call themselves as “Changma”. Similar to other
indigenous peoples of the world, the Chakma people were also independent on their own before
the British colonial period. They had powerful kings who had ruled the Chakma Kingdom for
several centuries. It is believed that the Chakma Kingdom was founded in Chittagong in around
1550s. It was only in the year 1860 that the British annexed their kingdom and separated it into
the two districts- Chittagong and the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Chittagong became a part of
the Bengal Province and was rapidly settled by Bengali people, where the British made CHT an
autonomous administrative district within the undivided British Bengal. In the CHT, the hill
tribes benefited from British Administration as they were considered as “British tributaries” and
not subjects and retained authority in their internal affairs as the British role was mainly limited
only to collection of annual tax in cotton or in cash. Subsequently they received protection under
the Chittagong Hill Tracts Manual Regulation of 1900 (the CHT Manual). Throughout the
British colonial period the 1900 Act functioned as a safeguard for the Jumma people, prohibited
land ownership and migrations of non-indigenous peoples in the CHT. Subsequently, provision
of the special status of the Chittagong Hill Tracts was further underlined with the Government of
India Act 1935 to designate the district as a “Totally Excluded Area” for the safeguards of
indigenous inhabitants and to restrict permanent settlement and acquisition of land by the
outsiders (Sahni, 2009).
Inception of Problem in Chittagong Hill Tract

The inauspicious British era came to an end with the tragic partition of the Indian sub-continent
but this was even more catastrophic for the ill-fated Chakmas. In 1947 when the country was to
be partitioned it was expected that the Chittagong Hill Tract with over 98% non-Muslim
population would be included in India, contemplating this, an Indian flag was hoisted by the
optimist Chakmas in Rangamati district for three days from 15th August 1947. But brushing
aside all the expectations Sir Cyril Radcliffe, chairman of the Punjab and Bengal Boundary
Commission, awarded the CHT to Pakistan on 17th August 1947 in contravention of the Indian
Independence Act 1947 for political ends (Prasad, 2006). The reason for this decision was
purportedly to provide a hinterland to the port at Chittagong including the Karnaphuli River,
which was of vital commercial and strategic interest to this port. Some people say that, this was
actually done to make up for denying the award of some Sikh-compact areas to Pakistan. The
Hill people of the CHT could not accept this (Chaudhury, 2003).

The leadership of the Hill Tracts also wanted to join the Indian Union. The three tribal chiefs
demanded recognition as a “native state” from the British, the Congress, and the Muslim League.
Failing to obtain this, they proposed a confederation with Tripura, Kuchbihar, and Khasia states
that would be administered under central authority. But these attempts were not fruitful and in
August 1947 the Chittagong Hill Tracts became a part of Pakistan against the will of the local
people. (Syed and Chakma,1989).

The intensity of the problem has begun to increase with new industrialization and economic
policies for ‘resource appropriation’ for the benefit of the national economy with little or no
participation by the local tribal men (Zaman,1982). Since then, the Chakmas and other non-
Muslim tribal groups of the CHT have faced extensive and well documented oppression at the
hands of the various Islamic governments.

The first constitution of Pakistan in 1956 gave recognition to the special status of the CHT. This
was further strengthen in 1962 when CHT was recognized as a “Tribal Area” and provided with
relevant constitutional guarantees. But, in a dramatic turn from the previous status, in 1964, the
government revoked the special status of the CHT and henceforth the region ceased to be
provided with any specific legal or constitutional safeguards. At the same time, the Pakistan
government announced its intention to open up the area for economic development and
encouraged poor Bengali families to settle there (Amnesty International February, 2000).
Therefore, it becomes open to settlement by people from outside the area. This enabled non-
indigenous people to enter and acquire land in the CHT.

It was the Chakma elite who about a century ago brought Bengali cultivators as sharecroppers
into the Hill Tracts to plough and grow paddy on the flat lands. Thereafter, plough cultivation
was taken up by the Chakmas themselves, and also by Moghs, Tipperas, and Tontsongyas. Most
of the Bengali features of plough cultivation have been taken over by the Hillman, and the same
cropping cycle is followed as in the Chittagong plain. By the mid 1950's, out of 115,000 persons
living around the future reservoir area (that is, out of slightly less than half of the total district
population), 50,000 were classed as belonging to families supported primarily by plough
cultivation; of the 80,000 persons in the reservoir area, 5 per cent were in plough-cultivating
families. (Shopher, 1963). Together with the spread of plough cultivation among the Hillman,
there has been an increasing influx of Bengali plainsmen into the Hill Tracts. At first they were
merely sharecroppers, but many were subsequently permitted by the district authorities to
acquire their own land. Since partition this has become increasingly common. The plainsmen in
the Hill Tracts also operate the bazaars that are found along the waterways throughout the
district. The valley’s Hillman, particularly those in the plough-cultivating villages, have become
greatly dependent on the bazaars not only for staples but for minor conveniences and occasional
trifles as well. Pots, cloth, and metal ware, including their chief implement, the dao, or knife, are
among their most important purchases.

The origin of the problems in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is believed to be the completion of a
dam at Kaptai near Rangamati between 1957 and 1963 when the area was administered by
Pakistan. Compensation for lost land was inadequate. Cultivable land was unevenly distributed
in the blocks, and a number of people were obviously short of their quota. With not nearly
enough land ready for plowing, the Chakmas were naturally worried about having to feed so
many simply by jhum cultivation on the flat land. There was apprehension, justified as it turned
out, that land within the Rehabilitation Area would be submerged when the reservoir filled. The
official abhorrence of jhum resulted in whimsical restrictions on the clearing of slope land
allotted to the hillmen as their own. One official decreed that forested hills were not to be used
for jhum because the government intended them for fruit culture; how this was to be done
without clearing was not explained (......,1978).

Although the Karnafuli dam project was conceived as a multipurpose scheme as early as 1906
with the possibilities of having hydel power generation, the project received priority for
developmental schemes only after partition in 1947. Due to various political reasons the newly
established East Pakistan Government had to shift the original location of the project further
downstream to low elevations and taken up to the village of Kaptaimukh where the Karnafuli
was 220 yards wide, 10 feet above sea level and meandered widely. An earth dam 100 yards long
by 136 feet wide encompassed an area of 254 sq. miles (Hutchinson, 1978). As such the project
not only generated hydro-electric power but also tensions and discontentment among the local
inhabitants. Change in the original location of the dam resulted in a major population
displacement of both native tribes and settlers. Among these tribes who were already engaged in
settled (plough) cultivation, the Chakma alone constituted 25 per cent. Moreover, they were not
looked after by the government and without significant compensation particularly to them who
were jhum cultivators. The problem was further aggravated as the native Chakmas being
Buddhists, and the authorities/settlers, Muslims. Thus, there were tensions and disaffection
among the various tribes of the region against the government. (Kharat, 2003).

In 1964, communal violence and the construction of the Kaptai hydroelectric dam displaced
nearly 100,000 Chakmas. A large number of them sought as refugees in India (Prasad, 2006). As
for the Chakmas, riot started from the days of the late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who in his ill
advice attempted to impose ‘Bengali’ nationalism on them and urged to forget ethnic identity and
merge with the Bengalis. His successor, Ziaur Rahman, followed this up by settling Bengalis
from the plains to the hill tract, thus creating further distrust and fear among the Chakma, who
apprehended that they would be swamped by the outsider and reduce to minority in their own
homeland (Letter to Editor, 1992). As a response to this large scale ruthless oppression, the tribal
people organised a political platform of their own, called as ‘Parbottya Chattagram Jana Sanghati
Samity (PCJSS)’, headed by Manobendra Larma, then Member of the Parliament from the CHT
and his younger brother Santu Larma, a school teacher.

Faced with the threat of losing their identities and traditional tribal rights, tribes began to respond
to government's policies of 'detribalisation' through increased armed resistance. The PCJSS soon
launched its armed wing called Gana Mukti Fouj (People's Liberation Army), popularly known
as the 'Shanti Bahini'. The Shanti Bahini is dominated by members of the Chakma community
who were the worst sufferers by the construction of the dam. The response of the Pakistani
government to this resistance was increasingly repressive and the tendency seemed most often to
be, to see the resistance as a 'communist-inspired' guerrilla activity spilling over the border from
neighbouring hostile Indian and Burmese territories (Zaman,1982).

Flight or displacement is a time-tested coping strategy for escaping the effects of conflict. When
people do not feel safe in their communities and when other coping strategies (such as hiding or
negotiating with warring groups) do not work, they flee, (Ferris and Winthrop, 2010). It is true
that each individual needs a comfortable life and security and these desires of human being tend
to move them in another place. Chakmas could not live a regular life in their traditional way due
to the construction of Kaptai dam, which submerged their villages and cultivable land, and
subsequently failure of East Pakistan to pay compensation. It was further aggravated by the
insecurity of life due to growing incidents of communal riots between the new non-tribe settlers,
who were in majority and the indigenous Chakma tribe. These are two main reasons, which led
to migration of Chakmas into India.
Chakmas in India

The Chakma population constitute a commendable population in East and North-Eastern Indian
states like Tripura (Northern and Southern part), Assam (Langsilet area of Karbi –Aglong and
north Chachar Hill district), Mizoram (western belt bordering Tripura and Chttagong Hills of
Bangladesh), Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh (Changlang, Lohit and Papum pare districts) and
also in West Bengal where a few Chakma families are found (Nandy, 2012).

However, except for Arunachal Pradesh, in rest of the Indian states Chakmas have got
citizenship rights. Presence of Chakmas in North Eastern States like Tripura, Mizoram can be
found during the post independent period also. The Chakma refugees of Arunachal Pradesh hail
from Chittagong Hill Tract erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. These refugees came to
India during 1964-1969 partly to escape the religious persecution of repressive Government of
erstwhile East Pakistan and partly due to the forced displacement as result of the construction of
Kaptai Dam in that country. They were and are the responsibility of erstwhile East Pakistan, now
Bangladesh. (Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996). When they reached India in 1964, Shri.
Mahavir Tyagi, the then union relief and rehabilitation minister, tried to settle them in Bihar by
offering cash doles. But the majority of the Chakmas refused to move to Bihar on the plea that
the climate of that state would not suit them.

At that critical juncture, the government of India contemplated a plan of settling these refugees in
North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) presently Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the history of
settlement of Chakma refugees in NEFA began.

Settlement Process in India

The Chakmas are amongst the first victims of development-induced displacement in modern
South Asia. Due to the religious persecution and the malevolence led by the construction of
Kaptai Dam by the East Pakistan, they have no choice left behind them but to flee from their
native homeland to a new place of unknown. Some estimates say that around a hundred thousand
of Chakmas who were the victims of these worse consequences fled into India in the 1960’s. The
Indian government had nothing to do but to accept them as refugees on humanitarian grounds, as
the government was well aware that they were betrayed during the partition of India too. A large
number of these displaced Chakmas were then settled in Arunachal Pradesh (the then NEFA)
after due consultation with the local leaders. The Government of India relocated them in the
districts of Lohit, Changlang, and Papumpare under a “Definite Plan of Rehabilitation” with five
acres of land per family. For proper establishment of their shattered life the Government of India
extended all possible kind of helps including financial aids, employment, trade, license,
migration certificates etc.

Finally, it was under the Indira-Mujib Agreement of 1972, which determined that it would be the
responsibility of India and not Bangladesh for all migrants who entered India before 25 March
1971. Hence, in the agreement it was decided that the refugees who came to India from the
erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) before 25 March 1971 will be considered for grant of
Indian Citizenship (SAHRDC, 1997). The total population of the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh
stood at 65,000 according to the 2001 census (Dutta, 2002).

The Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh and the Basis of Their Immigration into India

The Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh originally belonged to the total Chakma population of the
Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of present Bangladesh. They migrated to India because of (i) their
displacement from their original homesteads in the aftermath of construction of the Kaptai
hydroelectric dam on the Karnafulli River in the early 1960s, (ii) inadequate response from the
Pakistani State in respect of their rehabilitation and compensation (Kabir 1998: 16, Shelley 1992:
31, Islam 1978: 31-32) and (iii) treatment as ‘rejected people’ within the laws of the Pakistani
State (Mohsin 1997: 33-77).

These Chakmas migrated to India because (i) as Nilaratan Chakma 3 argued, unlike Pakistan,
India was a secular and democratic country with multi-cultural diversity, (ii) presence of their
ethno cultural proximity with many ethnic groups of the Northeastern India and (iii) presence of
sizable number of Chakma population in many of the Indian states such as Tripura, Mizo hill
district, Assam and West Bengal. According to Nilaratan Chakma, the intention of their
migration was preeminent and it was aimed at living in India permanently as Indian citizens and
they had never thought of going back to the CHT as they lost everything there.

What was the basis of their settlement in NEFA? Several explanations are available about the
basis of the Chakma settlement in NEFA. One of such explanations states that the Chakma

3
Interview with Nilaratan Chakma of Dumpader of Arunachal Pradesh on 18/10/2010
settlement in NEFA was done on the basis of a casual decision of the then Governor of Assam,
Vishnu Sahay, who in a letter on 10 April 1964 to Sri B. P. Chaliha, the then Chief Minister of
Assam opined:

“It occurs to me that we may trouble between the Mizos and the Chakmas in the Mizo district.
The Chakmas would be quite suitable to go into Tirap division of NEFA, where there is easily
found vacant land in the area about which you and I have often spoken (Mukherji 2000: 87).”

Once, the present Mizoram state was under the administrative jurisdiction of the Governor of
Assam. Therefore, looking at the factor of given historical enmity and estranged relations
between the Mizos and the Chakmas, Governor Sahay did not want to see trouble to occur in the
Mizo hills. However, according to Ajay Sen Chakma 4, the Chakma settlement in NEFA was
sought for other reasons. In the first place, the Chakma settlement areas were non-populated
remaining almost as no-man’s lands. Secondly, the agencies of the Government of India
considered the existence of religion and cultural proximity between the Chakmas and other
ethnic groups like Singphos and Khamtis, who live in closer adjacent to the Chakma settlement
areas. Finally, it was also partially motivated by the Indian government to guard the Indian
territory from illegal encroachment by the Chinese armed forces in the Eastern Sector. Whatever
might have been the motive behind Chakma settlement in NEFA, it was true that the issue of
their settlement was done and monitored officially by the Government of India. They were
jubilant and saw their dream was coming true, as Mr. Chakma argued, when they were given
settlement in NEFA with valid migration certificates. These helped many of them to get
government jobs and obtain ration cards, which further assisted them to avail the rationing
facility under the Public Distribution System. Each family was also allotted with 5 acres of land
(Mukherji 2000: 87-88). The Chakma children got educational access to the schools located
there. They could avail health care facilities without any discrimination. The state government
issued trade licenses to those who were encouraged to do business. There was good
neighborliness between the local tribes and the Chakmas. Therefore, the Chakmas thought that
they had become citizens of India like other East Pakistani immigrants who migrated to India
during that period in other parts of India.

4
Interview with Ajay Sen Chakma on 15/09/2010 in New Delhi.
Chakma Settlement in Arunachal Pradesh: An Issue of Centre-State Conflict and Human
Rights Violation against the Chakmas

The euphoria and their jubilation were short lived. The local tribes such as Khamtis and
Singphos, the immediate neighbors to the Chakma localities share a different acrimonious story.
It argues that initially the local tribe did not show strong protest, but they expressed their
resentment against settlement of these refugees in their locality (ibid). Therefore, ethnic tension
between the Chakmas and the local tribes cropped up openly in the later years. The problem
became a hot debated issue in the politics of Arunachal Pradesh in 1980s and emerged an issue
of Centre-State conflict in the Northeast India. The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly in a
private member’s resolution on 23 September 1980 urged the state government to take some
effective steps regarding expulsion of the Chakma refugees from Arunachal Pradesh.5

The situation warranted the Government of India to send a central delegation in 1982 to study the
situation of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh. The team in its facts finding report
recommended for grant of Indian citizenship to the Chakmas and commented that such a move
could provide a ‘responsible social behavior’ to these refugees. 6 The favourable attitude of the
Central Government towards the cause of suffering of the Chakmas invited strong protest in
Arunachal Pradesh. In protest, the Arunachal government took various discriminatory measures
that included immediate withdrawal of scholarship, book grants and denial hostel facilities and
admission access to the Chakma students in schools located outside the Chakma inhabited areas.
The Government also stopped completely providing employment facility and did not make
permanent to those were already employed before creation of Arunachal Pradesh. It did not issue
permit or license for trade and commerce, and cancelled up those trade licenses issued to them
earlier.7

Having seen the failure of the state government to attain its objective even with the help of such
discriminatory measures, in the beginning of 1990s, All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union

5
Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, to M. Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Home Affairs, Government
of India, no. 236/72, 9 December 1976, White Paper, Annexure VIII, p. 56.
6
M. M. Jacob, Minister of State for Home and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, New
Delhi, to Sri Laela Umbrey, D. o. n. 12/16/92 M. Z., 23 September 1992.
7
This is based on reply of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. M. M. Jacob to a Parliamentary
Question no. 3861 on 16 December 1991 and the Minister of State in the Industry Ministry, Mr.
P. J. Kumar to Question no. 4303 on 18 December 1991. Mr. Subimal Chakma also stated the
same situation in this regard during the interview with him on 25 June 2008 in New Delhi.
(AAPSU) spearheaded a strong anti-Chakma movement mounting more pressure on the state
government to take drastic action against the Chakmas. The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly passed resolutions in December 1992 and September 1994 demanding immediate
deportation of the Chakmas from Arunachal Pradesh. On the contrary, the Government of India
ruled out the possibility of their deportation from Arunachal Pradesh reiterating that the
Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh were eligible for grant of citizenship under Section V of the
Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 (Mukherji 2000: 93).

The most significant milestone in the history of citizenship right movement of the Chakmas of
Arunachal was the judgment of the Supreme Court of India on 9th January 1996 that called upon
the Union Government of India to expedite the process of conferring Indian citizenship right to
these Chakmas and instructed both the Union and the state governments to protect and secure the
lives and properties of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh.

From the beginning of 2000, the Election Commission of India expanded its constitutional role
in the Chakma localities of Arunachal Pradesh. It instructed the state electorate officials to revise
the voter list with inclusion of eligible Chakmas, as a result of which, 1497 Chakmas could
exercise their right to vote for the first time in the Assembly Election of 2004 (Singh 2010: xv).
During the Assembly Election of 2009, 14000 applications were submitted to the State Electorate
Department, and out of which 1740 Chakmas were included in the revised state electoral list. 8
The AAPSU opposed the decision and demanded immediate resignation of the Chief Electoral
Officer (CEO), MK Parida. It called for boycotting election process and threatened to close down
Central Government establishments in the state.9

The institutional access at the time of their migration and constitutional role played by some
constitutional bodies such the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court of India
created some hope for better political life but continuous opposition of the government of
Arunachal Pradesh and AAPSU against their permanent settlement right within Arunachal
Pradesh in total violation of the constitutional role of the Election Commission of India and the
judgment of the Supreme Court created agony for them.

8
Interview with Mr. Subimal Bikash Chakma and Mr. Santosh Chakma on 15/10/2010 in Diyun
of Arunachal Pradesh.
9
North East Press Service, 18th March 2008.
Dilemma in Human Rights based on cultural relativity in AP

In an important turn over the literature review while exploring knowledge about this tribe, it is as
much as simple as turning for field survey and as complicated as visiting historical facts and
pages. Similarly, a cleavage of colonial legacy and its contradiction with the cultural relativity
has left a wide trajectory of unruly question marks into subsistence of life of the Chakmas
lacking behind a setting around political arrangement. Further, in psychoanalysis, history has
been stopped at a certain point because Chakmas were then under a foreign ruler and are still a
foreigner or alien in its own motherland, or say still trapped between nation-state building and
made the burden of history. Whereas the common understanding is that it’s repeating itself only;
then they were under colonial ruler and now under their policies under the patronage of the state.

Surprisingly, by chance of timing no one could be directly held responsible for their deteriorating
conditions of life. The Chakmas will continue to live status-quo so far till master alive. Whereas,
in another perspective, the inclusion of the Chakmas in AP was nothing less than imposition of
Human Rights over the tribal Rights on the other hand because they are more compromised and
pressurized by the international community and allege that the Chakmas are exploring more
ways and sources from humanitarian organization like Amnesty International, Red Cross
Society, Asian Centre for Human rights, NHRC etc. Both tribals and Chakmas are helpless in
human rights and thereby needed to compromise because if the former are innocent then the later
are no less than victims. Therefore, a sharp distinction of understanding is to be postulated here
to go beyond the existing syllabus of human rights education to understand more
comprehensively the social cleavage between cultural relativity and homogeneity, and the degree
of accepting of it. Nevertheless, there is not a kind of doubt or dilemma that the human rights till
its fifth generations are political in nature and bear cultural relativity having a broad economic
base, and in the case of the Chakmas it could be speculated that someday their question for social
upliftment and political emancipation may not be recovered, get equilibrium or could be
compensated by the policy of reservation, as demanded by every ethnic community in the
northeast. However, the volatile political situations and subsequent instabilities in government
says that the issue will go green as a major electoral exercising platform for Chakmas as well as
indigenous tribal because the Election Commission of India (ECI) knows well that the fair 4685
Chakma- Hajongs10 voters in four Assembly Constituencies by January 2018
(ceoarunachalpradesh.nic.in) which may bring twist in the story and history. This power is not
earned overnight that demands responsibility to make fate and history. Therefore, coming over to
a number of opinions shared by the young informants, a common parlance found is saying “All
what I’m not a Refugee by the right given by Section 5 of Birth and Death Registration Act (from
three to two generation at least), order 1996 of Supreme Court, by having voter cards (not
assembly election and Panchayat election as subjects under state list so far)”. There is seen a
deep sentiment to a genuine feeling of attachment towards this land along with consciousness
towards empowerment and emancipation from the term ‘refugee’, which aggressively in a
psychological sense alienate their essence of being equal human and more toward at its best
acceptance, equity and suitability.

The chakmas everywhere other than AP are not so called refugee but yet it is observed that there
is a space which makes them even in other state not liberated from the narrow meaning (non-
indigenous or not the son of the soil) of the concept of ‘refugee’, and felt exploited with this term
if not etymologically and somewhere this space is occupied by the tag of being refugee in AP
supported by the reason that it is the last resort the same family resettled or left out in separate
states in the Northeast since Diaspora Scattered and they are provided with a constitutional
category of Hilly Schedule Tribe and duly recognized autonomy. For instance, Chakma
Autonomous District Council in Mizoram (CADC).

The Chakmas of AP has really been positively a hardcore contribution to the study of Human
Rights studies and deepen study of non-violence and Peace studies. It is the time for the state to
resolve the same peacefully and at the earliest make it not complicated and pro-sensitive within a
bracket understanding and blanket policy. Over the time, it is continuously very much
detrimental to the cost of life giving acute effect to the cause of worst of life to the chakmas in
AP.

Since days before partition to till date the state is failed reconcile between its various set of
policies regarding refugee problems and therefore need to build a uniform refugee law in true
sense of the terms with international norms led by Refugee Conventions 1951 and others.
Whereas there seems no logic to maintain status-quo to the chakmas in AP for another half a
The Hazongs are Hindu by religion and share a common experience and political status with the Chakmas in AP.
10

Whose population is one-fourth of the Chakmas in AP.

century and since it is the problem of demographic security now, it is very obvious for the policy
makers that the chakmas, with a mere 3.9% of total state population is not avoidable nor
desirable to be repatriated or deport those 54,203 Population of chakmas (Census by CCRCHAP
in March 2012 but strategically its total population of 65,000 as reported to have said by General
Secretary). Precisely saying there is not a question of voluntary return since they fulfilled the
definition of Refugee in 1960s as provided by Refugee Convention of 1951, but until it gets
amicable solutions there may be ‘n’ number of questions seeking for an organic state. To make it
a little generalized, it is migration which is very natural and in fact India has been the place of
highest refugee in the entire South Asia.

While examining the unrest perceptions and volatile conceptions among various mindsets in two
different people i.e. chakma and indigenous tribal living adjacent are Singphos, Khampti, Naga,
Nocte, Mishings, Mishmi etc. then it is very much similar in the growth of political
consciousness in the region, where the first two tribal populace are more conscious towards
articulation of the problems against chakmas, but it seem sharply a bias into the exploration of
knowledge and information, when all state owned mechanism is controlled and fourth pillar like
media manipulated in constructing knowledge and manufacturing consent against these so called
‘unsuitable people’ and in exchange reproduced more consciousness in overcoming mindsets.

While comparing with Tibetan refugee, the chakmas are bitter more submerged and subjected
towards external conditions and internally facing paucity of integrity, inter-mingle attitude,
commitment and connectivity. Whereas the chakmas are more struggling towards acute plights
like internal health, market and political economy, water and sanitation, mighty Dihing river and
homeless situation, land alienation and scarcity of resources against population, unemployment ,
inter-state and intra-state migration and human trafficking, internal migration, education ,
Christianization etc. which force them to not only for social exclusion but losing self-respect and
subjected to be a labour worker, waiter in restaurants, salesman and security guards in malls,
tutor, contractual teachers, driver etc based on prerequisite skills in metropolitan city like Delhi,
Mumbai, Bangalore, Gujarat etc. and very often reported to have been harassed, molested, sexual
abuse, beaten in the work or rented place because this is the structural system engineered by the
state that push indirectly for violence or say not facilitate moral growth because no Chakma
entertain government service and not paid nor rehabilitate them when natural disaster or calamity
hazards them. Therefore, it is surprisingly a very pathetic condition to learn about their
sustenance and submission towards life and struggle.

Socio-Economic Condition

Chakmas are classically divided into three main groups: Anokya Chakma, Tongchangya Chakma
and Doinakya Chakma. However, there is another group of Chakmas found in Arakan in the
Roang province who are less known even to the common Chakmas. They are known as Roangya
Chakmas according to the name of their dwelling place (Jahirul Hoque, 2013). Traditionally,
Chakmas are Buddhist and officially follow Theravada form of the Buddhism. Chakmas are
divided into clans (gojas), which are further subdivided into sub-clans (guttis). The social
condition of the Chakmas is very rich. They do not have caste system or any type of division we
see in other religions. Socially, they live and eat together, and participate in all the occasions
without any differences. They marry freely without any restriction based on rich, poor etc.

The Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh are economically poor and it is difficult to believe that even
after sixty years of Independence vast sections of the society are living under such abject
poverty. The government does not have any plan for these marginalized sections of the society.
Not a single scheme of Government of India is being attempted by the Government of Arunachal
Pradesh as well as any civil society to bring some necessary economic changes to improve the
conditions of the poor Chakmas in all the three districts of the state (Prasad, 2010). At present,
nearly 50,000 Chakma are living under difficult economic conditions in Arunachal Pradesh
without any public infrastructure and supply. About 55% of the Chakma are illiterate; they enjoy
only little or no medical care at all. Roads do not exist and there are only very few schools, most
of them provide up to 4 or 5 class-level education only. The majority of the Chakma are farmers
who earn the livelihood for their families from rice cultivation under difficult conditions. The
educational opportunities in the region are totally inadequate. 50% of the Chakma never went to
school. If children are enrolled at a school parents have to pay roughly 70% of their total
household income. Health care services are a tremendous problem in many remote villages, not
even mentioning the lack of clean drinking water.11

Politics of Identity

11
Chakma Project, http://www.infinitecompassion.de/?page_id=34&lang=en
The Chakmas have been sheltered by the Government of India and are residing in the state of
Arunachal Pradesh since the calamitous Great Exodus (Bar Parang) that took place in the 1960’s.
The Government’s policy on these refugees was to grant citizenship as they are originated from
areas that were part of Undivided India. However, the story of the Chakmas in Arunachal
Pradesh is still different even after fifty years as they are not yet granted Indian Citizenship
despite the fact that they were issued valid migration certificates at the time of their arrival in
India and repeated assurances from the central government to grant them citizenship. Further, a
very large proportion of these refugees would have been born in India and therefore would be
automatically entitled to the grant of citizenship, but they are compelled to continue as stateless
people.

Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh who came to India before fifty years have been fighting for their
basic fundamental rights, i.e., right to life to survive and their waiting for the grant of citizenship
and scheduled tribe status, even though their brethren on the other side in Mizoram, Tripura,
West Bengal, Assam and Meghalaya and some other migrants (tribes) were granted citizenship
along with other rights as accorded under Article 342 of the Constitution (Karat, 2003). Hence,
the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh had to form a Committee known as the Committee for
Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCAP) in 1991. Nevertheless, in
response to that the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh became more hostile and started
inciting sectarian violence against the Chakmas. Hence, the Supreme Court of India had to
intervene in the internal affairs of Arunachal Pradesh and in its interim order on 2 November
1995 directed the State Government to “ensure that the Chakmas situated in its territory are not
ousted by any coercive action, not in accordance with law” (SAHRDC, 1997). Further, the
National Human Rights Commission had moved the Supreme Court in 1996 pleading for
protection of lives and properties of the Chakma refugees in view of the All Arunachal Pradesh
Students‟ Union (AAPSU) movement. The Supreme Court in its judgment on 9 January 1996 on
this petition directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to ensure life and personal liberty of
every Chakma residing within the state. The Apex Court also directed the state government to
enter the applications for Indian citizenships submitted by the Chakmas under Section 5 of the
Citizenship Act in the register maintained for the purpose. In this regard, M.M. Jacob, Governor
of Arunachal Pradesh for a while in 1996 and former Union Minister of State for Home Affairs,
while expressing the view of the Central Government stated that,
"The presence of these Chakmas in the area has also not resulted so far in any major law and
order problems though some isolated instances of friction between locals and these Chakmas
have come to our notice…. That the Central Team which visited Arunachal Pradesh to study the
problems of these refugees expressed the view that the grant of citizenship would introduce an
element of responsible social behaviour in these refugees" (Singh, 1996).

He further added,
"Refugees from Bangladesh who came to India between 1964 and March 25, 1971 are eligible to
the grant of citizenship according to the policy of the Government, as most of the migrants have
already been granted citizenship". Therefore, "Keeping the above in view there is no question of
deporting these refugees from the state of Arunachal Pradesh. The general public in the state
will have to be convinced that the burden of rehabilitation of the refugees will have to be shared
by the country as a whole including Arunachal Pradesh" (Singh, 2001).

Notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous order of the Supreme Court, the State Government
of Arunachal Pradesh has not taken any measure to implement the court’s directions. Rather, the
State Government has undertaken various measures to undermine and violate the Supreme Court
judgment. The government is yet to take a decision on 4,677 applications for grant of citizenship,
submitted by the Chakma and other refugees (such as Hajongs) through CCRCAP. However,
with the intervention of the Election Commission of India, names of 1,497 Chakma and Hajong
youths born in Arunachal Pradesh between 1964 and 1987 were included in the electoral roll for
the first time and allowed to exercise their franchise during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls (Talukdar,
2008).

Today, Chakmas are the largest refugee group and second largest population group in the
Arunachal Pradesh. The fact is that the Chakmas is a majority group and if granted citizenship
and concurrent political rights, the Arunachalees fear that the political equation can easily change
in favour of the refugees (Goswami, 2007). In view of countering the citizenship drive of the
Chakmas the State Government has been making the conditions of the Chakmas untenable by
denying them fundamental rights such as right to education and other basic facilities such as
health care, employment facilities. Other measures included a complete halt to any development
activities, refusal to provide trade licenses, refusal to deploy teachers in the schools located in the
Chakma areas12. During all these years, the Chakmas are facing hostility from the natives of
Arunachal Pradesh too. While the central government has expressed its firm determination to
grant citizenship to the Chakmas, the state government does not view citizenship to be an issue at
all. However, time has changed, the world is changing; now time has come for the people of
Arunachal Pradesh has to understand that the legal part of the Constitution which provide certain
rights to the Chakma refugees to settle in the state.

Recent Developments in the Chakma Issue

In September 2015, the court, after hearing a petition filed by the Committee for Citizenship
Rights of the Chakmas, directed the State government to grant citizenship to Chakmas and
Hajongs within three months.13 The State government had opposed the move in court. After
giving a statement that the order had to be honored, Mr. Rijiju changed his stand and said it was
not implementable. He clarified that since the Home Ministry was the implementing authority for
granting citizenship, it would approach the Supreme Court to modify its order.

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 seeks to provide citizenship to refugees from minority
communities, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Christians and Buddhists, after six years of
live in India. This created a hostile scenario, in particular in the states of North-East. The
indigenous people of Arunachal Pradesh, along with several civil societies and the AAPSU, are
in sturdy competition of the Bill, because the Chakma and Hajong refugees might additionally
obtain citizenship upon the passage of this Bill.

The severe opposition from the indigenous communities is due to their tussle over land and
sources. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill will provide the Chakma and Hajong refugees all
constitutional rights, including ownership of land. All political events of Arunachal Pradesh
unanimously oppose the demand of citizenship by way of the refugee populace given that, except
stretching available resources it’d alternate the demographic composition of the kingdom, and
threaten the identification and lifestyle of the indigenous people, in particular the smaller tribes
12
Chunnu Prasad, Chakma-Hajong Refugees and Their Rights, retrieved from
http://www.globalpolitician.com/print.asp?id=2651
13
Committee For C.R.Of C.A.P. & Ors vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors
of the area. Many additionally agree with that the Chakma and Hajong groups will subsequently
demand Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, with a view to cause discounts within the number of seats
reserved for the indigenous tribes in schooling and government jobs.

Keeping in thoughts the grievances of the Chakma-Hajong human beings, the Central
Government proposed the idea of ‘Limited Citizenship’ to the refugee population. This provision
will provide the refugees with Indian citizenship without any land ownership rights or a
Scheduled Tribe repute. However, the AAPSU and various civil societies have demanded that
the government perceive the Chakma and Hajong communities who got here to the NEFA from
1964 to 1969 before granting them citizenship rights. This is much like the National Registrar of
Citizen (NRC) system in Assam. With the nation government of Arunachal Pradesh taking a
stand completely in opposition to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, an ambiguous path lies
ahead for the Chakma-Hajong refugees.

Reasons for Which the Government of Failed to Deliver Justice to the Chakma Refugees

The constitutional law favours furnish of Indian citizenship to these Chakmas. As a critical
difficulty, the Central Government has also specific jurisdiction over the problem of citizenship
right. The Indian states aren’t as powerful because the federal states of the United States. In most
instances, they’re sure to comply with the directives of the Central Government mainly all
through enforcement of legal guidelines emanating from the Union and Concurrent Lists. The
Supreme Court is the best of Court of regulation in India. The country administration of
Arunachal Pradesh defied the order of the Supreme Court and acted in opposition to the
instructions of the Central Government in shielding the fundamental rights of the Chakmas. But
such violation did no longer invite any motion from the Government of India towards the
administration of Arunachal Pradesh. Why did the Indian Government fail to implement the
judgment of the Supreme Court and supply justice to the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh? The
non-stop connection with the existence of “Inner Line Regulation” in NEFA even at some point
of the time of Chakma agreement by means of the government of Arunachal Pradesh created
criminal complexity in managing trouble. The lifestyles of ethnic sensitivity in Northeast India
consisting of Arunachal Pradesh had additionally inspired the decision makers of the Indian
Government in this regard. Another factor became the involvement of parochial political pursuits
of the 2 fundamental national political events-the Indian National Congress (INC) and the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which formed and run the Union Government within the last one
and 1/2 decade. The important management of these two political events expressed sympathy to
the purpose of the Chakmas at national degree11 However; the nearby leaders of Arunachal
Pradesh antagonistic their valuable management on this regard. No disciplinary action became
taken against the defiant leaders of the nation. Instead, these political parties paid utmost
importance to their respective political pursuits inside the kingdom. The state birthday
celebration leadership exploited this example in their favour. They realized the significance of
overt or covert assist of the Central Government to preserve their competition towards the
Chakmas agreement in Arunachal Pradesh and make it and difficulty of politics. When the first
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) become in energy, Gagang Apang, the then Chief
Minister, defected the INC with a big wide variety birthday party supporters and legislators and
joint the BJP and formed the BJP authorities within the state for the primary time. The BJP,
whose critical management constantly confirmed sympathy to the Chakmas, did now not utter
any phrase in opposition to the Mr. Apang led BJP government, when it meted inhumane remedy
to the Chakmas. During 2004 General Election, the INC led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
got here to energy. Mr. Apang again took an opportunist stand. He rejoined the INC and winning
the election, he has become the Chief Minister. Therefore, the INC became in power both inside
the Centre and in the nation of Arunachal Pradesh. But, the imperative Congress leadership
maintained an ambivalent stance and decided now not to damage the sentiment of the nation
Congress leaders through putting pressure on the issue of the Chakma imbroglio. Therefore,
parochial interests of these two primary political parties also factored in pre-empting the Union
Government to a more volume to take effective measures to supply justice to the Chakmas. The
Chakma leadership of Arunachal Pradesh become additionally extensively responsible for their
cause. The Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCAP)
is Delhi based totally. The movement at home became no longer organized at an expected and
required degree. Instead, the CCRCAP favored the direction of felony struggle to set up justice.
Many in their leaders are now running in one of a kind government and non-authorities sectors
outside Arunachal Pradesh. They offer no time to the CCRCAP as they did once. Therefore, the
fragmented and vulnerable management of the Chakmas could not mildew strong public opinion
of their favor and exert required stress at the political government to clear up their trouble.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The politics of realism has been dominating feature in the politics of Arunachal Pradesh in
dealing with the Chakma problem. The tribal groups of the state are not against citizenship right
of the Chakmas. They are against permanent settlement of the Chakmas within Arunachal
Pradesh. The feeling of xenophobia among the major ethnic groups of the state and their
apprehension of being outnumbered and politically overtaken by the Chakmas in the future
politics of the state are the main sources of opposition against the permanent settlement of the
Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh. The central leadership of the two major national political parties
like the BJP and the INC expressed sympathy to the cause of the Chakmas but paid utmost
importance to the party‟s political interests in the state even at the cost of Chakmas‟ interests.
On the other hand, the Chakmas, as Nilaratan Chakma said, have no other option but to live in
Arunachal Pradesh as their children who were born and brought up here cannot go anywhere.

The situation arrests the scope of institutionalizing the concept of equal opportunity as per the
degree of certain leveling process as laid down in the Indian Constitution. The Central
Government requires to a pro-active interventionist approach to break the stalemate with some
policy measures that will address the cause of the both Chakmas and the apprehensions of the
tribal communities of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, although they are living with agony, yet
room for justice still remains because the constitutional laws of India are not against their Indian
citizenship right.

Policy measures to address the cause of the Chakmas

1. The Chakmas should be granted citizenship right under the Citizenship Act and all eligible
Chakmas should be included in the electoral roll without any prejudice and discrimination. The
idea of limited citizenship proposed by the government of India is a change in the right direction,
but it fails to address many of the problems that Chakma refugees have been facing over the last
50 years or so. The politics of appeasement should be kept aside, and deserving refugees like the
Chakmas should be granted what they deserve.

2. The basic social services such as health care facility, public distribution system and trade
licenses and regular employment under the state government and educational access to all
educational institutions within the state should be provided to the Chakmas like other fellow
citizens of the Country.
Policy recommendations to address the apprehensions of the local tribal communities

1. As part of reconciliation and negotiation between the parties in conflict, the Indian
Government may facilitate tripartite talks with representatives from both Central and state
governments and CCRCAP.

2. With inclusion of the Chakma population, the number of the existing seats in the State
Legislature may be increased to provide representation of all communities including the
Chakmas. The existing seats which are presently represented by the Khamtis and Singphos, if
required, may be reserved for them to address their concern.

3. The apprehension of alleged influx of Chakmas into Arunachal Pradesh from other parts of
India may be addressed by providing Identity cards. The policy of the Indian Government to
provide Aadhaar Card to its citizens may also serve the purpose.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Subha Mangal Chakma, “All What I’m not a Refugee”: A Case Study of Chakams in
Arunachal Pradesh, 5 IJRAR, August 2018
 Jyoti Bikash Chakma, The Great Exodus of Chakmas and its Aftermath: An Overview,
Presented in International Seminar on Society, Polity and Economy of the Chakmas,
December 2013
 Dr. Bindu Ranjan Chakma, Between Agony and Hope: The Chakma Refugees in
Arunachal Pradesh, 3 International Journal of Advance Research, September 2015
 Talukdar,S.P, The Chakmas: Life and Struggle, Gian Publishing House, Delhi, PP-101-
118,137-138
 Prasad, Chunnu, India’s Refugee Regime and Resettlement Policy: A Case of Chakmas in
Arunachal Pradesh, PhD Thesis submitted to the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi (2010)
 Kharat, R. S., From Internal Displacement to Refugees: The Trauma of Chakmas in
Bangladesh, research paper presented at Researching Internal Displacement: State of the
Art, International conference on IDPs on 7 - 8 February 2003, Trondheim, Norway